News

Nine month wait for justice in shocking child privacy case

13/10/2021

Alice Watkins

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

by Alice WatkinsSalacious copy may be good for circulations. But any responsible journalist knows to approach sensitive stories carefully.

A recent story in the Isle of Wight County Press provides us with an important reminder of the potentially devastating consequences of publishers which have failed to handle a sensitive story with care.

The case also serves as a reminder that the industry-controlled press complaints handler, IPSO, remains unfit for purpose.

In September 2020, The Isle of Wight County Press published a series of extraordinary claims based on an interview with a woman. The article was an account of a woman described as a “survivor of horrendous domestic abuse” - a serious allegation, which if credible and true, the newspaper would have been right to cover.

The article explained that the woman had told the newspaper that her husband was an abuser and had told her story through a “chilling poem.”

But the newspaper failed to confirm whether the allegations had any credibility.

In reality, most of the allegations had previously been investigated by police, who made the decision to take no further action. Indeed, a custody case ruled that the couple’s children could be safely returned to him.

The newspaper's failings, in this instance, led to a significant and distressing intrusion into the lives of the man and the children of the couple.

The Editors’ Code - for all its flaws - does include protections for children, which should ensure that journalists avoid intrusion into their lives.

But by the time IPSO acted, much of the damage was likely already done. Because despite many of the details being relatively straightforward, it took the sham regulator nine months to reach its decision.

That will have meant nine months without justice for the family affected by the reporting.

And in that time, further distress is more than likely to have been caused, with any sanction likely to have very little deterring effect to minimise future breaches.

Until IPSO is reformed or replaced by an independent regulator, newspaper wrongdoing will go on.

A Man v Isle of Wight County Presshttps://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=28280-20

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News
When media abuse of academics becomes the norm in HE
Following the death of Jason Arday, Corinne Fowler writes on the toll of media abuse on academics and what universities must do to protect their staff.
8/19/26
News
IPSO ties itself in knots over Telegraph complaint
Media lawyer Jonathan Coad complained to IPSO about a Telegraph article claiming Hacked Off wants "state control" of the press. IPSO's response contradicted itself within the space of a few paragraphs.
8/14/26
News